Perceptions and Acceptance of a Prophylactic Vaccine for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention methods, such as the advent of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the number of people with newly acquired HIV remains high, particularly in at-risk groups. A prophylactic HIV vaccine could contribute to reduced disease prevalence and future transmission and address limitations of existing options, such as suboptimal long-term adherence to PrEPs. METHODS: This qualitative study aimed to capture perceptions towards and acceptance of prophylactic HIV vaccination in three adult populations in the United States: the general population, 'at-risk' individuals (e.g. men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, gender-nonconforming individuals, and individuals in a sexual relationship with a person living with HIV), and parents/caregivers of children aged 9-17 years. Interviews were conducted with 55 participants to explore key drivers and barriers to HIV vaccine uptake, and a conceptual model was developed. RESULTS: The sample was diverse; participants were 51% female, aged 20-57 years (mean 37 years), 33% with high school diploma as highest education level, and identified as White (42%), Black or African American (35%), of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (22%), or other races/ethnicities (8%) [groupings are not mutually exclusive]. Perceptions were influenced by individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and structural factors. Overall, 98% of participants thought vaccination would be beneficial in preventing HIV. Key considerations/barriers included perceived susceptibility, i.e. whether participants felt there was a risk of contracting HIV (discussed by 90%); the clinical profile of the vaccine (e.g. the adverse effect profile [98%], and vaccine efficacy [85%], cost [73%] and administration schedule [88%]); and concerns around potential vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP; 62%). Stigma was not found to be an important barrier, with a general view that vaccination status was personal. Participants in the 'at-risk' group were the most likely to accept an HIV vaccine (70%). Unique concerns in the subgroups included how a potential vaccine's clinical profile compared with PrEP, voiced by those receiving/considering PrEP, and considerations of children's views on the topic, voiced by parents/caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding these factors could help develop HIV vaccine research strategies and contribute toward public health messaging to support future HIV vaccination programs.

Stereotypes about compassion across the political spectrum.

To what extent are ideological differences in compassion real or exaggerated, and who is more likely to engage in stereotyping about such differences? In five studies, including three online studies and two field studies of voters at the Iowa Caucus and U.S. Presidential Election in 2016, we found evidence for political stereotyping about compassion. Although Democratic and Republican participants did not consistently rate themselves as feeling different amounts of compassion on a single-item self-assessment, there was a stereotype that the average Democrat/liberal is more compassionate than the average Republican/conservative. Importantly, this stereotype exaggerated the extent of self-reported differences in compassion across parties in these samples, and Democratic participants engaged in stronger stereotype exaggeration. These results suggest that although there can be ideological variability in compassion, the perceived difference may exaggerate this reality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Do Religious Primes Increase Risk Taking? Evidence Against "Anticipating Divine Protection" in Two Preregistered Direct Replications of Kupor, Laurin, and Levav (2015).

Do reminders of God encourage people to take more risks? Kupor, Laurin, and Levav (2015) reported nine studies that all yielded statistically significant results consistent with the hypothesis that they do. We conducted two large-sample Preregistered Direct Replications (N = 1,104) of studies in Kupor et al.'s article (Studies 1a and 1b) and evaluated replicability via (a) statistical significance, (b) a "small-telescopes" approach, (c) Bayes factors (BFs), and (d) meta-analyses pooled across original and replication studies. None of these approaches replicated the original studies' effects. Combining both original studies and both replications yielded strong evidence in support of the null over a default alternative hypothesis, BF01 = 11.04, meaning that the totality of evidence speaks against the possibility that religious primes increased nonmoral risk taking in these designs. This suggests that support for the "anticipating-divine-protection" hypothesis may be overstated.

Atheist horns and religious halos: Mental representations of atheists and theists.

Theists often receive the benefit of being stereotyped as trustworthy and moral, whereas atheists are viewed as untrustworthy and immoral. The extreme divergence between the stereotypes of theists and atheists suggests that mental images of the two groups may also diverge. We investigated whether people have biased mental images of theists and atheists. The results suggest that mental images of theists are associated with more positive attributes than images of atheists (Study 1), and these mental images influence who is believed to behave morally and immorally (Study 2). Together the findings suggest that mental images may represent a subtle mechanism reinforcing group-based prejudices. (PsycINFO Database Record

The politics of socioeconomic status: how socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement.

Socioeconomic status is hypothesized to be one factor informing political attitudes and actions. Presumably, this relationship is rooted in economic self-interest, with individuals preferring policies that would benefit them financially. In addition, these economic policy preferences are assumed to translate into political action. However, the relationships between socioeconomic status and political attitudes and behavior, as well as the psychological mechanisms associated with those relationships, are not straightforward. Here, we briefly review the current state of knowledge on the relationships between socioeconomic status and political attitudes and behavior. Overall, the research suggests that while socioeconomic status informs political attitudes toward economic policies, these attitudes may not correlate with complementary political behavior.